Thursday, March 15, 2007

Could a NEW LIE Derail the NY Times?!

There’s no mistaking the fact that the NY Times Editorial board reviles getting tough on illegal immigration. They’ve long supported a veritable and untenable open border position.

Today (3/15/2007), the NY Times may have actually crossed the line and made false charges against the Department of Homeland Security, specifically, its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) division.

Today’s editorial begins, “A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure.”
The Times claimed that a 27 day old baby was separated from her mother and weaned from breast milk and taken “dehydrated” to a Boston area hospital, insinuating that the child's condition was related to the raid.

However, when challenged, the NY Times acknowledged that they were unable to verify the existence of that baby. A Massachusetts social services official, while critical that the I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officials didn’t cooperate with local social services agencies, asserted that two infants were taken to area hospitals suffering from pneumonia, completely unrelated to the raid on Michael Bianco inc., a leather goods factory in New Bedford, MA.

Immigration officials claim that at least 327 of Michael Bianco's roughly 500 employees, most of them women, were detained by immigration officials for possible deportation as illegal aliens.

I.C.E. officials also said that no children were stranded and that authorities released 45 detainees who were their children's sole caregiver. Spokesman Marc Raimondi said the agency gave early warning to state social service officials of the pending raid.

In the wake of the raid Raimondi has said that people here illegally know there are consequences and that they risk being detained and removed from the United States. "You can't lose sight of the fact these people were here illegally, they violated the law and they're being held accountable," he said.Francesco Insolia, 50, and three top managers were arrested after 300 federal agents raided Michael Bianco Inc.

Authorities allege that Insolia oversaw "sweatshop" conditions so he could meet the demands of $91 million in U.S. military contracts. U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan has accused Insolia of exploiting the illegals in order to maximize his profits on the military contracts to make backpacks and safety vests for soldiers. The owners face up to $3,000 in fines and up to six months in jail for each illegal immigrant hired.

So, it's looking increasingly like the NY Times has falsified and sensationalized the details of this case to press a decidedly dangerous, reckless and frankly anti-American agenda of open borders in an age of rampant international terrorism.

Perhaps this will be THE lie that derails the NY Times?

I’d certainly be completely in favor of that.

Here's the link to the NY Times editorial;


Dan O. said...

They left themselves an out, JMK.
It's in the 'opinions' section, so no facts are necessary.

And enough BH's (Bleeding Hearts)will read those words and use them to blame Bush that the lack of veracity will be lost.

JMK said...

While you're right that it's an editorial Dan, they still can't make things up out of whole cloth.

OK, they can, but that's generally what you'd expect from the National Enquirer, not the NY Times.

They wrote about a factual event and appear to have the facts of that event completely wrong.

They clearly went on record as saying a 27 week old baby was ripped from her mother's arms, denied breast milk and admitted to an area hospital for dehydration.

That appears to be false.

A spokesman for the Massachussets social services, while critical of the way ICE handled the raid, acknowledged that no children were left without guardians and that two babies were admitted to area hospitals for pneumonia, which they contracted while with their mothers. The dehydration was a result of the pneumonia, not the raids.

Over 70% of Americans support stronger border enforcement and oppose amnesty programs for illegal aliens.

This isn't merely a mistake-prone, editorial, it's a blatantly dishonest one. I hope more people wake up to the deliberate dishonesty at the NY Times.

Jill said...

This from a guy who watches Fox News. A-freaking-mazing.

JMK said...

I DO watch FoxNews and I read the NY Times, the New American, The Wall Street Jnl, Newsweek and Time.

Anyone who looks at ANY of these as "impartial sources" is hopelessly naive.

The NY Times, however has a SINGULAR history, unrivaled by any other acccepted news source of fictionalizing the news, or posting "faction" (a mix of fiction & facts as news) - the infqamous Walter Duranty disgraced the Pullitzer prize Committee by accepting a Pullitzer for his fictional accounts of Stalin's "worker's Paradise.

The NY Times will never and should never be allowed to put the blight of Duranty behind it, because it showed that many of those at that paper were closet Bolsheviks - there's nothing more anti-American than that.

Now we witness that same paper, after Jason Blair, and so many other such recent examples of "Durantyism," editorialize on an actual event, getting virtually every detail of that event wrong, to make an inane and ridiculous point - that a tougher U.S. immigration policy would due so much harm to illegal aliens that it's really not worth it???

Jill, I doubt even you would defend the NY Times' history. Not even you would defend Duranty, so not even you could possibly defend the NY Times naive and inane policy on immigration.

A tougher immigration policy that would secure our southern border and restrict legal immigration to only those with specific skills we need, would actually be MORE humane to those who hold a false hope of coming here.

I would certainly welcome your defense of any of those things.

Dan O. said...

The problem is people are (deliberately or not)not distinguishing between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. They want it to appear as though those opposing ILLEGAL immigration are anti-immigration and racist.

They then use that pretzel logic to pull at the heart strings of the naive. It's always bleeding heart over thinking mind with them. With no weight given to actual facts or circumstance.

JMK said...

"The problem is people are (deliberately or not)not distinguishing between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. They want it to appear as though those opposing ILLEGAL immigration are anti-immigration and racist." (Dan O)
100% right Dan o!

And it's deliberate and nefarious, in all cases.

There is no reasonable justification for defending illegal iimigration, otherwise some of those folks would have made that appeal.

They haven't, because they can't.

The fact is that not only is illegal immigration a national security problem, but an economic disaster for American workers as it puts a persistent downward pressure on low-skilled and unskilled wage rates (the floor) and as the floor is lowered it pulls all other wage rates down.

I don't believe that any of those on the other side can argue against those facts.

Dan O. said...

Of course they don't have a legitimate argument, but that's when they start the name calling and saying we just don't get it.

JMK said...

That certainly seems to be the SOP Dan O.

American Ideas Click Here!